↓ Skip to main content

Intracystic bleomycin for cystic craniopharyngiomas in children

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Intracystic bleomycin for cystic craniopharyngiomas in children
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008890.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Si Zhang, Yuan Fang, Bo Wen Cai, Jian Guo Xu, Chao You

Abstract

Craniopharyngiomas are the most common benign histological tumours to involve the hypothalamo-pituitary region in childhood. Cystic craniopharyngiomas account for more than 90% of the tumours. The optimal treatment of cystic craniopharyngioma remains controversial. Radical resection is the treatment of choice in patients with favourable tumour localisation. When the tumour localisation is unfavourable, a gross-total or partial resection followed by radiotherapy is the main treatment option in adults. However, it presents a risk of morbidity, especially for children. Intracystic bleomycin has been utilised potentially to delay the use of radiotherapy or radical resection, to decrease morbidity. This review is the second update of a previously published Cochrane review. To assess the benefits and harmful effects of intracystic bleomycin in children from birth to 18 years with cystic craniopharyngioma when compared to placebo (no treatment), surgical treatment (with or without adjuvant radiotherapy) or other intracystic treatments. We searched the electronic databases CENTRAL (2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE/PubMed (from 1966 to February 2016) and EMBASE/Ovid (from 1980 to February 2016) with pre-specified terms. In addition, we searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews, conference proceedings (International Society for Paediatric Oncology 2005-2015) and ongoing trial databases (Register of the National Institute of Health and International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) register) in February 2016. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomised trials or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing intracystic bleomycin and other treatments for cystic craniopharyngiomas in children (from birth to 18 years). Two review authors independently performed the study selection, data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment. We used risk ratio (RR) for binary data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data. If one of the treatment groups experienced no events and there was only one study available for the outcome, we used the Fischer's exact test. We performed analysis according to the guidelines in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic reviews of Interventions. We could not identify any studies in which the only difference between the treatment groups was the use of intracystic bleomycin. We did identify a RCT comparing intracystic bleomycin with intracystic phosphorus(32) ((32)P) (seven children). In this update we identified no additional studies. The included study had a high risk of bias. Survival could not be evaluated. There was no clear evidence of a difference between the treatment groups in cyst reduction (MD -0.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.69 to 0.39, P value = 0.59, very low quality of evidence), neurological status (Fisher's exact P value = 0.429, very low quality of evidence), third nerve paralysis (Fischer's exact P value = 1.00, very low quality of evidence), fever (RR 2.92, 95% CI 0.73 to 11.70, P value = 0.13, very low quality of evidence) or total adverse effects (RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.68 to 4.53, P value = 0.25, very low quality of evidence). There was a significant difference in favour of the (32)P group for the occurrence of headache and vomiting (Fischer's exact P value = 0.029, very low quality of evidence for both outcomes). Since we identified no RCTs, quasi-randomised trials or CCTs of the treatment of cystic craniopharyngiomas in children in which only the use of intracystic bleomycin differed between the treatment groups, no definitive conclusions could be made about the effects of intracystic bleomycin in these patients. Only one low-power RCT comparing intracystic bleomycin with intracystic (32)P treatment was available, but no definitive conclusions can be made about the effectiveness of these agents in children with cystic craniopharyngiomas. Based on the currently available evidence, we are not able to give recommendations for the use of intracystic bleomycin in the treatment of cystic craniopharyngiomas in children. High-quality RCTs are needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 83 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 16%
Student > Bachelor 10 12%
Researcher 10 12%
Student > Postgraduate 9 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Other 18 21%
Unknown 15 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 9%
Environmental Science 3 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 18 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 June 2017.
All research outputs
#3,341,258
of 14,331,612 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,972
of 10,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,004
of 210,265 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#87
of 142 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,331,612 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,948 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 210,265 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 142 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.